Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

[roughdraft]

Neat opinion.

we like to have productive conversations here

 

[Nowhere]

All religions are poised as perfection, but people are not: that is why I give Quranic and other religous passages to unsuspecting Christians---I might replace the NAME---and then hope they go home and google it.

Scientist have the greatest faith because they are willing to change their assumptions. I try, not to deny anyones' personal experiences and embrace their understandings. No one has authority here y'all (oh wait unless you've got an epic beard!). Thanks for the resources, and for keep'n it real.

 

[Dameon]

Scientist have the greatest faith because they are willing to change their assumptions.

That's literally the opposite of faith.

 

[Nowhere]

That's literally the opposite of faith.

Their faith is the Truth.

 

[roughdraft]

Their faith is the Truth.

i think the point is if you've grasped 'the truth' then faith is not required

 

[Nowhere]

i think the point is if you've grasped 'the truth' then faith is not required

Yes, you are right.. thus naming a specific ideology, or God(s) only leads to separation of all other forms of 'the truth.' So how can we go about explaining the 'Unseen'? To answer in short: it's all a personal path. Some here will argue there is no spiritual world, and that is okay, but it's not our position to deny others' experiences. I'm a hypocrite---I love religion and it seems just as silly too. I would be embarrassed if an alien race came here and said what's what, but sometimes I need a deliverance from the shit situations I put myself in.

 

[Maxnomad]

"All religions are poised as perfection" um no my guy a pretty central notion of Christian faith is that only god the absolute can be perfect, and gospel, as something that passes through the hands and mouths of men is fallible cause folks are fallible, and cause of that there's no such thing as certainty that's why *christ* placed so much emphasis on humility, and why faith is called faith and not expertise. I'm not sure why y'all can grasp that not every oog knows everything there is to know about trains but you deadass swallow whole everything you've ever heard from the mouths of a christian. . .

 

[Maxnomad]

I don't even believe in god btw, but I think charity and goodwill is tite so I got yall
a present

 

[roughdraft]

I don't even believe in god btw, but I think charity and goodwill is tite so I got yall
a present

lmaooooo.... WHAT ELSE!?!?!??!

 

[Beegod Santana]

But without religion how will I get a bunch of old people I hardly know to forgive me for all the terrible things I've done?

 

[Dameon]

But without religion how will I get a bunch of old people I hardly know to forgive me for all the terrible things I've done?

It's drastic, but you may have to go the old fashioned route and just not do terrible things.

 

[WyldLyfe]

Religion: from the latin verb religare: "to tie back; to hold back; to thwart from forward progress; to bind. A system of control based in unchallenged dogmatic belief which holds back the progress of consciousness.

The thing is, how many of you are religious and don't even fucking realize it! yet you all love to arrogantly mock others for things you yourselves are doing.. because many of you are what you declare you hate or dislike.. religious, atheism in itself is a fucking religion, scientism, left or right wing political views, the belief in the legitimacy of authority, and the belief in the value of money, there are many.

Now with that being said, there is a higher force, a primordial force within nature/ourselves that when one comes in contact with, WILL change your life, and transform you setting in motion that process of progress. People who mock such a notion do nothing more then show there ignorance on the topic, and show where they stand.

 

[Beegod Santana]

Nah, there's no force. You're just high buddy.

 

[Dameon]

Religion: from the latin verb religare: "to tie back; to hold back; to thwart from forward progress; to bind. A system of control based in unchallenged dogmatic belief which holds back the progress of consciousness.

Yeah, completely wrong. From the latin word "religionem", "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness."

religious, atheism in itself is a fucking religion, scientism, left or right wing political views, the belief in the legitimacy of authority, and the belief in the value of money, there are many.

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Sorry, none of those fits the definition of a religion, just saying "anything you believe is a religion" isn't true, as much as religious people always want to try and pretend "atheism is a religion!" to make themselves feel better about being religious. You're trying to say literally everything is a religion, and that's simply not true by the common definition of religion.

Now with that being said, there is a higher force, a primordial force within nature/ourselves that when one comes in contact with, WILL change your life, and transform you setting in motion that process of progress. People who mock such a notion do nothing more then show there ignorance on the topic, and show where they stand.

Or they've had the same "experience" and drawn different conclusions from it. You're basically just saying "anybody who doesn't agree with my subjective interpretations of certain kinds of experiences is just ignorant." It's ironic that earlier in your diatribe you were talking about other peoples' arrogance, but at the same time you have the arrogance to say "I have the only valid interpretation of a subjective experience."

 

[WyldLyfe]

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

This is what it comes down to^ those words.. worship and controlling power, like i said some worship authority, some money, others there "guru" or Gods as you say. There is more to all of this though, more then i know, because yes the gods and goddesses are real, but at the same time there original intent was to be created by teachers as images representing parts of our own psych, for seekers to reflect on, get in touch with and understand but people have distorted traditions and now people worship these. If you look at my thread "ufos and craft we've filmed" that is another part to this, it seems since humanity has been visited by other worldly beings since we've existed, some have considered them to be gods and goddesses to, when any benevolent e.t won't take such a position over a human like that, but assist instead of wanting to be worshiped.

Sorry, none of those fits the definition of a religion, just saying "anything you believe is a religion" isn't true, as much as religious people always want to try and pretend "atheism is a religion!" to make themselves feel better about being religious. You're trying to say literally everything is a religion, and that's simply not true by the common definition of religion.

Not everything is a religion in the sense you mean here, but people hold onto these things religiously, it becomes there religion. Atheism is a religion, they often do not even want to or have not spent the time needed to delve deep enough into anything, in practice, and just say stuff like "oh they just think a fairy in the sky made the world, how stupid" and they actually think they are clever for that.

Or they've had the same "experience" and drawn different conclusions from it. You're basically just saying "anybody who doesn't agree with my subjective interpretations of certain kinds of experiences is just ignorant." It's ironic that earlier in your diatribe you were talking about other peoples' arrogance, but at the same time you have the arrogance to say "I have the only valid interpretation of a subjective experience."

Many people have had experiences and processes of initiation take place in there lives, and yes it is different for everyone but can be somewhat similar, or similar for individuals at times, what do you think all these monks, mystics, mystery schools, Occultists, shamans ect.. around the world are doing? there are actual practices to be done that bring forth results, not just believing a book or preacher, there is a difference, there is a science. Many traditions even have stages for one to pass through and I shall present an example here.. in regards to the Alchemy tradition.

Alchemy, out of darkness, into light.
Alchemy, literally “from khem” or “out of darkness” is an occult tradition taught through allegories, an allegory is a cryptic story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted or decoded in order to reveal a hidden meaning. In the tradition of alchemy, it is asserted that all base modes of human consciousness (“base metals”) are imperfections of pure consciousness (“gold”), and that all “metals” are ordained by nature to become the perfect “gold of the sun” (enlightened.) The alchemist seeks to remove from his or her thoughts, emotions, and actions their disorderly imperfections, or base characteristics, in order to bring them to their true state of natural order (harmony with natural law) and to transmute them into “alchemical gold” representing the purification of the body, mind and spirit. The second phase of alchemical transmutation is albedo, or the whitening. Albedo represents the process of spiritual purification: the burning out of impurities from “salt” or hardened ego. The “salt” is reduced into quicksilver, or mercury, which represents fluidity, and the process of rapid mental, emotional and spiritual change, and strengthening of the sacred feminine essence, leading to the engagement of the imagination, from which the elixir of life (the awakened mind) can be made.

 

[Dameon]

This is what it comes down to^ those words.. worship and controlling power, like i said some worship authority, some money, others there "guru" or Gods as you say.

I like how you cherry pick a few words out of the definition. It comes down to the entire definition. Money isn't a "controlling power" because nobody thinks that money is a sentient being that consciously decides their fates. You're just performing extraordinary reaches of sophistry.

Not everything is a religion in the sense you mean here, but people hold onto these things religiously, it becomes there religion. Atheism is a religion, they often do not even want to or have not spent the time needed to delve deep enough into anything, in practice, and just say stuff like "oh they just think a fairy in the sky made the world, how stupid" and they actually think they are clever for that.

That's not how religion works. Atheism is not a religion. What do atheists worship? What do we think is a controlling power? Nothing and nothing. Atheism is literally the opposite of a religion. There's no dogmatic beliefs you're taught; most people arrive at atheism after being raised in a religion, by questioning beliefs, not by automatically accepting them. Atheists often delve deep into many things, your generalization is your own biases showing through. That's not an argument, that's just an insult.

what do you think all these monks, mystics, mystery schools, Occultists, shamans ect.. around the world are doing? there are actual practices to be done that bring forth results, not just believing a book or preacher, there is a difference, there is a science.

Well no, there's not a science, because some fundamental principles of science are that you should be able to repeatedly get observable results, and that you should be able to predict what results you will get. None of those occultists can fulfill either of those principles, or it wouldn't be weird fringe occult stuff, it would just be science. Science doesn't reject this stuff because scientists are dogmatic and refuse to believe it, science rejects it because scientists have tried (and some still try) to validate these kinds of beliefs, and failed miserably every time they didn't cheat.

 

[void gaze]

Anyone see that thing recently where Dawkins tweeted “I’m not saying we *should* do eugenics, but if we *did* it would totally work “? Good stuff...cool guy.

I’m not going to read this whole thread so sorry if this has been said but I think I can get the flavor from reading this page and I just wanted to say that a lot of times atheists especially ones like him are talking about Christianity or certain versions of it and maybe of a small number of other religions when they say “religion (in general)” and they spin arguments that don’t really relate either to the differences or in the ways that religion/s has/have a place in people’s lives. A lot of ppl find it a way to have community and ritual that gives structure to their lives and maybe that famous sense of ‘connection to something greater than oneself’. I don’t find Dawkins and other neo-atheists seem to say much about that.

 

[Dameon]

Anyone see that thing recently where Dawkins tweeted “I’m not saying we *should* do eugenics, but if we *did* it would totally work “? Good stuff...cool guy.

Is he wrong, though? Scientifically, it would work. Are you seriously condemning him for stating a scientific fact while acknowledging that ethically it's not a valid path? Are we supposed to pretend that genetics doesn't work because eugenics is wrong?

a lot of times atheists especially ones like him are talking about Christianity or certain versions of it and maybe of a small number of other religions when they say “religion (in general)”

What gives you that idea? Atheists may speak mostly about Christianity/Islam, but that's because those are the two major religions in the western world. Of course I'm not going to spend my time arguing against some small niche religion practiced by a relative minority. That doesn't mean that I'm not against that religion, just that there are much bigger fish to fry.

and they spin arguments that don’t really relate either to the differences or in the ways that religion/s has/have a place in people’s lives. A lot of ppl find it a way to have community and ritual that gives structure to their lives and maybe that famous sense of ‘connection to something greater than oneself’. I don’t find Dawkins and other neo-atheists seem to say much about that.

That's because...and I know this may sound a little crazy: you can get community, ritual, and structure without religion or god. There are, in fact, non-theist churches. You can spend time with people without it being centered around worshiping imaginary creatures.

 

[void gaze]

No it’s definitely very normal and cool to talk about the advantages of breeding people like racehorses. You know, because it ‘works’. I don’t really get the fish fry part though. But I did go back and skim the thread and I wanted to address the binding of Isaac, which you brought up, in a way I think might help you see what I mean. Considering that like Dawkins you’re in a culture where Protestant Christianity is so socially dominant you don’t have to think outside of it, and can miss how heavily that shapes your whole concept of ‘religion’ and its elements.

For instance Christians read this story, like much of the Bible, very differently from Jews, who are inclined to identify as much if not more with Isaac (the father of Jacob/Israel) than with Abraham (also father to Ishmael and the Arabic people). For some it’s a literal belief but to many it’s a mythological symbol of risk and responsibility in human life. We are all like Isaac some way helplessly exposed to a universe that can kill us, like Abraham conflicted sometimes about what seems and feels right. It’s a horrifying, terrifying story; it’s not at all about what you said, about how human sacrifice is good; the Bible says in many places that it’s unacceptable. It’s a disturbing paradoxical fable and btw ends with the substitution of a ram for Isaac which I think bears pretty fascinating ecological/anthropological analysis according to the concept of totem.

A lot of modern Jews have a pretty metaphorical notion of a lot of what our religion is ‘really’ literally about since it’s just as much really about family, community ritual ancestors etc all the things that give you a place in the world... it’s not at all about the kind of fanatical belief and obedience that some Christians are about, and some Christians aren’t either. Sure you can have those positive things without religion, but why have a problem with people who do have them together? What’s even the point of attacking that besides being edgy? It’s a culture, a way of relating to people and world through practices and stories, and some find it beneficial even if some don’t. Again I think it’s easy to miss to miss if most of your idea of what you’re against is shaped by analyzing stuff like JW, Mormons, Evangelicals salafi/wahhabis etc

I didn’t get this for a very long time- I was raised a standard secular American liberal by people who have the same kind of reductive and dismissive ideas. I don’t see that their disenchantment particularly helps them live or makes them any less fanatically obedient to capitalism or any less delusional about its ideology. I started “getting” Judaism after spending time around Native people and learning something about how and why certain past spiritual traditions are preserved adapted and revived.

 

[void gaze]

Or to just throw a quick related point out there, the idea that you can look at the Bible almost anything that’s in it and say ‘this definitely means X’ is itself more the viewpoint of a fundamentalist than an informed critic - someone who appreciates how it’s a collection of texts that were written in many times and places for a lot of reasons, in languages very different from English. Even the prosaic seeming legal stuff is not easy to understand well outside of its historical context, yeah treating human beings as slaves is not good but first the word isn’t actually slave it’s eved which means a servant of any kind and second slavery was practiced all around the region then and in some countries the rights of servants, slaves wives etc were a lot worse than what the Torah specifies. Then in Judaism at least there’s thousands of years of rabbinic interpretation aiming to soften the harsh and violent laws. Or again all the seeming racism about canaanites, it’s hard to dispute now that the Israelites were at least partly canaanites who had left the cities for the mountains. If you look carefully it’s cities that they don’t like, with their wealthy elites and violent oppression. There is zero archaeological evidence for the wars of Joshua when the burning of many cities would have left traces obvious to scientists even today.

In sum, re: the Bible. Not everything says what it looks like it says and not everyone who’s not an atheist thinks there’s a literal meaning!